There are 14730 comments on the
News24
story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.
In it, News24 reports that:

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.

Not according to Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist. cosmologist, Nobel Laureate.

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

<quoted text>Backpeddling AND equivocating?You have absolutely no clue what knowledge was available to humans in ancient times. Sumeria's Epic of Gilgamesh tells fanciful tales of genetically engineered humans which is dismissed as "myths" yet the double helix shape associated with the god Enki who was believed to have created humans first appears on Sumerian temples circa 2600 BC, nearly 5,000 years before Crick and Watson discovered DNA's double helix shape. Genesis 1 says God created humans in the 6th day/age and Genesis 2 says God genetically engineered a new human male--Adamic man--AFTER the creations of the older human population.If our dating methods are correct, humans have been around give or take a million years, yet there is no archaeological evidence that early human brains were capable of anything like complex thought processing until after the Younger Dryas circa 16,000 BC, humans suddenly started demonstrating that ability, moved out of the caves and began inventing all kinds of tools and technologies. Science calls this the Neolithic age--religion calls this the Adamic age.Google anthropology's diffusion theory. Everything has a source. Following the anthropology trail to the source from which ALL human religious/philosophical ideas diffused to every part of the globe will lead you back to the Levant circa 8000 BC.

Yes that's certainly is an admirable Steaming pile of nonsense you shoveled up

However use of the Bible as proof is... well, ludicrous

I know it's hard but do try to stay on topic

You claim there's a God I say there is zero evidence that supports this thought

I shall be fair with you

Two simple questions

Can you Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do?

Can you Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs?

<quoted text>Yes that's certainly is an admirable Steaming pile of nonsense you shoveled upHowever use of the Bible as proof is... well, ludicrousI know it's hard but do try to stay on topicYou claim there's a God I say there is zero evidence that supports this thoughtI shall be fair with youTwo simple questionsCan you Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do?Can you Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs?Take your timeconsult your clergythey claim to know the unknowableThis ought to be a proverbial piece of cakeI'll wait. ;)

More strawmen laced with red herrings and garnished with trite ad hominems is all ya got?

Results: After a number of iterations you end up with a Petri dish full of a new strain of E. Coli. The instructions for the proteins / processes that offer antibiotic resistance are written into the animal's genome. The 'new' strain possesses a trait that did not exist before the experiment. It has evolved.

In fact, the process is going on all around us, all the time and will eventually render our antibiotics ineffective. You godbots best step out of the way and let the egg-heads figure out what we are going to do about it. I don't think praying is going to help.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Science is inquiry. Religion is presupposition.

Reasoning people do not accept religious dogma without evidence. We may never know all the answers, but science has solved a great deal of the most important questions.

Religion has an answer for everything, but solutions to nothing.

Don't get me wrong. Im not saying religion doesnt have its uses. Personally I turn to it whenever I want my intelligence insulted. And the holy scriptures come in very handy when I need to justify behaviour Im ashamed of.

I don't argue with idiots, they lower me to their level then beat me with experience.

Further replies will be ignored - you have served your purpose - thank you

<quoted text>Very correct. As our knowledge improves, some "models" of God might fade away, but the concept shall never go, because it is "built-into" our sub conscience.

Ah, so ... it's not really 'free will' then, more like sweaty palms or 'goosebumps', we just can't help ourselves. Interesting. That supports the observation that electrical (or electromagnetic) stimulation of certain regions of the brain can induce religious or mystical 'feelings'. All of this suggests a perfectly prosaic explanation for this 'God' nonsense ... it's all in our heads!! I prefer to think that we can control our 'built-in' impulses and the ability to do so marks a person's level of sophistication. In any case, I think you've made important progress here MUQ ... well done!

<quoted text>Not according to Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist. cosmologist, Nobel Laureate."Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

Sure, in a rather vague, poetic and allegorical sense, I agree. However note that he did NOT support your claim about animals. Because it was wrong. Plants too, since the sun did NOT appear AFTER plants.

Can you Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do?Can you Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs?

If he could he certainly wouldn't be referencing every religion on the planet and claiming it as "evidence" of God. The other alternative is that he's a fundamentalist deist (weird I know) whereby ANY mention of any God counts. But at best all he can do is point out that lots of ancient peoples all over the world came up with the idea of supernatural beings which were somehow responsible for the universe.

<quoted text>Backpeddling AND equivocating?You have absolutely no clue what knowledge was available to humans in ancient times. Sumeria's Epic of Gilgamesh tells fanciful tales of genetically engineered humans which is dismissed as "myths" yet the double helix shape associated with the god Enki who was believed to have created humans first appears on Sumerian temples circa 2600 BC, nearly 5,000 years before Crick and Watson discovered DNA's double helix shape. Genesis 1 says God created humans in the 6th day/age and Genesis 2 says God genetically engineered a new human male--Adamic man--AFTER the creations of the older human population.If our dating methods are correct, humans have been around give or take a million years, yet there is no archaeological evidence that early human brains were capable of anything like complex thought processing until after the Younger Dryas circa 16,000 BC, humans suddenly started demonstrating that ability, moved out of the caves and began inventing all kinds of tools and technologies. Science calls this the Neolithic age--religion calls this the Adamic age.Google anthropology's diffusion theory. Everything has a source. Following the anthropology trail to the source from which ALL human religious/philosophical ideas diffused to every part of the globe will lead you back to the Levant circa 8000 BC.

So ... you're saying God was kind of like ... a scientist? Mucking about with genetics and trying this or that formula to see how we would all turn out? Cool. Maybe 'God' represents an ancient alien race, zipping around, seeding planets, tweeking this or that gene to create what? A race of worshipers? I doubt it. Such creatures would value intelligence, appreciate the rarity, perhaps, of life and be trying to preserve it. Their ultimate goal would be to find or create someone to talk to as equals. Would they want us to waste our resources on churches? Or sitting, laying, kneeling, head-bang'n muttering prayers to 'em? I think not. We best throw in behind the Astronautical Engineers, Space Scientists and other visionary's trying to get us off-planet, otherwise we may call down the Wrath of Khan ... er, God!

<quoted text>If he could he certainly wouldn't be referencing every religion on the planet and claiming it as "evidence" of God. The other alternative is that he's a fundamentalist deist (weird I know) whereby ANY mention of any God counts. But at best all he can do is point out that lots of ancient peoples all over the world came up with the idea of supernatural beings which were somehow responsible for the universe.

As many times as I've asked those two simple questions there has never been an answer nor will there ever be!

<quoted text>Sure, in a rather vague, poetic and allegorical sense, I agree. However note that he did NOT support your claim about animals. Because it was wrong. Plants too, since the sun did NOT appear AFTER plants.It's okay though, we're quite used to fundies being disingenuous.

It isn't wrong. What's wrong is your representation of what Genesis 1 says.

When you say. "we're quite used to fundies being disingenuous" do you mean you and your sock puppets or something else?

If there's something wrong with my representation then there's something wrong with Genesis 1. Which is NOT my problem. Plants day 3, sun day 4.

Now, the Bible does mention OTHER lights which some fundies claim that were also capable of sustaining plant life on Earth, HOWEVER, this goes AGAINST the current scientific view of Earth's history period. Meaning that science is NOT supporting the Bible in this case.

Now go ahead and get Jastrow to agree to plants day 3, sun day 4 or admit you were just lying for Jesus and reaching REAAAAAAAALLY long when you were attempting to claim that science supports the Bible.

ezdzit wrote:

When you say. "we're quite used to fundies being disingenuous" do you mean you and your sock puppets or something else?

No other name used on this thread. I am simply The Dude. When I was talking about fundies being disingenuous I was referring to creationists like yourself. And as daft as you are I'm sure you understood that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.